Chandigarh court grants anticipatory bail to Porsche driver in fatal accident case

Chandigarh: The UT district court has granted anticipatory bail to Sanjeev Babuta, the accused Porsche driver, in the case of Ankit's death. Ankit, who was riding an Activa, died on the spot after being hit by the speeding Porsche on Sector-4/9 dividing road.
Following the accident, the victim's family sought justice. In response to the protests by the family and public, about seven days later, Sector 3 police added the charge of culpable homicide not amounting to murder against Sanjeev Babuta, a resident of Panchkula.
The accused filed an interim bail application in court. The court granted bail, directing him to join the investigation on March 29. The investigating officer informed the court that the accused joined the investigation but did not provide a satisfactory explanation for the accident. However, there was no need to take the accused into custody for questioning. After considering the police's response and hearing all parties, the court granted anticipatory bail to the accused.
The complainant's lawyer argued in a written response that the accused is a highly influential person, which is why the current FIR was initially registered under sections 106(1), 125(a), and 281 of BNS, with Section 105 added later.
The applicant was aware of his negligence and reckless act, as the deceased was dragged some distance by the applicant, resulting in his body being dismembered. Also, the applicant is a habitual offender of driving at excessive speed, having been fined four times previously. This case suggests that the applicant knew that driving at such a high speed could result in someone's death. The government lawyer also argued on this basis, requesting the rejection of the anticipatory bail application.
On the other hand, the defence lawyer argued that the applicant was not under the influence of alcohol and did not attempt to flee the scene after the accident. The applicant usually had his car driven by a chauffeur, who was fined for overspeeding before the accident. The lawyer pointed out that the applicant did not intentionally commit the act knowing it could cause someone's death. The road at the scene was cut in three places, and the deceased suddenly appeared on an Activa without a helmet.
In the initial hearing of the application filed by the accused, the court noted that the prosecution had not yet received the blood and urine sample reports of the accused. Babuta did not flee the accident scene and was initially released on bail. The court remarked that it is debatable whether the applicant's act falls under the definition of death by negligence or culpable homicide, which cannot be decided at this stage. The court also noted that Babuta had not misused the previously granted bail, and there was no pending application to cancel it.